Not sure if I have got the right end of the stick here but it is quite common
for the anti people to be very vociferous and appear to dominate local
opinion. Interestingly, in mine, and importantly others research, once
everyone gets asked themajority view tends to support tree retention.
I would add that the public have very valid opinions and quite detailed
knowledge about trees so would understand the concept of replacement.
I've said it loads but people really love urban trees,
Happy Christmas all
John
------------------------------
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 6:42 PM GMT andersonarb@xxxx.com wrote:
I think you won't be able to avoid future conflicts mainly with highway guys
who, understandably so, object to repeat visits to fix pavements damaged by
roots. But, better that than disadvantaging communities by removing the
trees,
which is the only alternative solution. I say this last bit in the context
that
most street trees grow in everyday suburban/urban streets out of the wider
spotlight so will never experience fancy design schemes where conflcicts are
avoided e.g. Stohl's (?) work.
-----Original Message-----
From: John Flannigan <jdflannigan@xxxx.com>
To: UK Tree Care <uktc@xxxxxx.tree-care.info>
Sent: Thu, 19 Dec 2013 17:23
Subject: Re: Tree Root Damage to Pavements
Hi John, as this relates to your PhD research:
Sheffield is in the midst of a street tree replacement program, along with
the renewal of highway surfacing and other bits of infrastructure.
Predictably the local newspaper runs a story most weeks about another bunch
of residents (and usually Ian Rotherham) up in arms about tree losses. So
predictably enough I was called in by an acquaintance who had organised a
meeting with the various Officials and a local Councillor. (Said Councillor
is barely out of nappies and planning to stand against Clegg at the next
Election; should be a laugh.)
Anyway what do you want me to do said I. Back me up says she; I don't think
they're taking enough trees down..... And it turns out that most of her
neighbours didn't either. Obviously I haven't got an opinion one way or the
other but I have to say while the way the Officers have selected trees seems
reasonable enough (excessive pavement disturbance, low vigour), they could
equally have chosen any of the other trees and used the same arguments.
Standing back from it all I do wonder whether some of these urban streets
are simply going to end up with trees that have a 30 year lifespan. we might
just get to the point where every 30 years the tree outside your house is
felled and another one stuck in. I really can't make my mind up whether I
think this is a good idea or not. On the one hand it seems wasteful, OTOH it
would do away with a lot of expensive pruning.....
Ho hum.
Bill.
PS http://goo.gl/maps/T7BZH - is the Google view of one of the streets if
anybody's interested.
--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info
Interested in advertising on the UKTC?
http://www.tree-care.info/uktc/advertise
Or for long term sponsorship opportunities, contact
chris@xxxxxxxxx.co.uk
--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info
Interested in advertising on the UKTC?
http://www.tree-care.info/uktc/advertise
Or for long term sponsorship opportunities, contact
chris@xxxxxxxxx.co.uk
